The Mooters' Page
The Mooters'
Page
Mooting Arrangements, 2009
Moot 1 - The Christian Party and John Davis v. The Kingston Human
Rights Commission
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is a very
controversial section. It was upheld by a 4:3 majority of the Supreme
Court of Canada in the case of Canada
(Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 but has
recently been ruled unconstitutional.
Would the result be the same today, especially in light of later legal
developments? Remember that no case is binding on this moot court, so
there is no impediment to relitigating Taylor and the facts of this
case, while similar to Taylor, are a little
different.
Group
A
For the appellants, The Christian Party and John Davis:
Brian Kolenda and Andrea Bolieiro
For the respondent, The Kingston
Human Rights Commission:
Erin Pleet and Sarah Reynolds
Group
B
For the appellants, The Christian Party and John Davis:
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith or Asher Honickman
For the respondent, The
Kingston Human Rights Commission:
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith or Asher
Honickman
Moot 2 - K.A.P.E. v. Kingston (Treasury
Board)
This is a case similar to N.A.P.E.
v. Newfoundland (Treasury Board), [2004] 3 S.C.R.
381 with very minor differences. Does the s. 15 Charter analysis change in
light of R.
v. Kapp, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483? Does the s. 1 justification
analysis in N.A.P.E. survive scrutiny on its own terms, and also in
light of other approaches under s. 1?
For the appellant,
K.A.P.E.:
Rashesh Mandani and Rob Caruso
For the respondent,
Kingston:
Mike Cromartin and Alfonso Nocilla
On facts similar to R.
v. Stillman, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607, would there still be a
Charter violation today? Would evidence still be excluded given
the new, 2009 tests for
exclusion?
Group A
For the appellant,
John Graham:
Julia Lefebvre and Deanna Brummit
For the
respondent Crown:
Carolyn Dunlop and Miranda
Serravalle
Group B
For the appellant, John Graham:
Milena Cardinal and Andrew Prevost
For the respondent Crown:
Janelle Khan and Chris Horkins
Group
C
For the appellant, John Graham:
Brian West and Chris Rae
For the respondent Crown:
Rebecca
Grosz and Rachel Stephenson
Intervener (The Canadian Police Association
Inc.):
Malcolm Savage
The Canadian Police Association Inc. is an
incorporated, non-profit company that represents the interests of police
officers, and law enforcement generally, in all Canadian jurisdictions and
territories. By an order dated October 21, 2009 of the Kingston Supreme
Court, made upon earlier motion, it was permitted to intervene and file a factum
of no more than 30 pages, seeking the dismissal of the appeal, supporting the
admission of the evidence in this case, and advocating that the Kingston Supreme
Court adopt principles that favour the interests of law
enforcement.
Guidance
Lots of guidance is on offer - please feel free to write or
call.
Mooting
Rules
The rules for the moots are found here. Make sure you follow them! Remember –
existing SCC cases are persuasive, but not binding.
Resource
Material
Factums
and legal writing
Factum precedents and
instructional documents (and a
bibliography)
Some Tips on Legal Writing... and an online guide to style (Strunk, The Elements of Style)
Some Tips on Legal Citation... and here are some more
Forget the Wind Up and Make the Pitch: Some Suggestions for
Writing More Persuasive Factums by the Honourable Justice John I.
Laskin
A good article on
argumentation: "The Top Seven Arguments of the First Year of Law School and
Their Counterarguments" by Julie
Hilden, an attorney in Manhattan
Oral Advocacy
Excerpts from the Queen's Mooting Manual on oral advocacy
Stratas' comments on oral advocacy